ELCA Apostolic succession

Makes no sense to me.
Unless you are confusing "Sedevacantists" with SSPX, the Society of St. Pius X. But it is not sedevacantist, never has been. The SSPX has a very convoluted position recognizing the reigning Pope, but refusing to obey him. Lately the SSPX has negotiated closer ties with Rome, such as getting its four bishops' ex-communications lifted. But these bishops are still not recognized as licit for any RC purposes. Marriages and absolutions by their priests are still invalid by RC terms.
Korah

Originally Posted by RadixLecti

I'm no expert, but here are the similarities that I have observed:

#1 Polity Both Anglicans and Methodists have an episcopal form of church government.

Not really. Methodist leaders are termed "bishops," just as we find with some Pentecostal and black Baptist churches, but they are elected and not in Apostolic Succession as Anglican bishops are.

#2 Beliefs

Wesley himself remained an Anglican priest until his death and much of what Methodists believe comes from Anglicanism, for example the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a modified version of Richard Hooker's three tiered Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

It's true, but 1) we are discussing Methodism, not Wesley...and 2) this similarity is not especially strong in practice. Methodists, for example, make much more of Reason than Anglicans do.

#3 Worship

The liturgy I have witnessed at Methodists churches sounds like a simplified version of the Book of Common Prayer -- Especially when they celebrate Communion.

Much simplified, I'd say. And Methodists generally do not share the Anglican POV concerning the nature of the Lord's Supper.

Is it possible that there is more than one group called "Methodist" or that you might have confused them with another group like Baptists?

I think I can tell the difference between the Baptist and Methodist churches, thanks.

Remember, we all agree that Methodism has some similarities to Anglicanism. But that wasn't the issue at first.

What the point was at first concerned Methodism being considered some variety OF Anglicanism, which I said is not the case. Of course there are going to be some similarities, but it's not hard to see from this list that they aren't particularly strong. Lutherans, as a matter of fact, are more like Anglicans, and they have no historical ties to the CofE as Methodism does. And you yourself posted before that Methdists don't have Apostolic Succession or the same view of the Sacrament as Anglicans do.

Originally Posted by Korah

Makes no sense to me.
Unless you are confusing "Sedevacantists" with SSPX, the Society of St. Pius X. But it is not sedevacantist, never has been. The SSPX has a very convoluted position recognizing the reigning Pope, but refusing to obey him. Lately the SSPX has negotiated closer ties with Rome, such as getting its four bishops' ex-communications lifted. But these bishops are still not recognized as licit for any RC purposes. Marriages and absolutions by their priests are still invalid by RC terms.
Korah

FWIW, what I've read accords with what you've posted here. I thought WA was mistaken when she said what she did about the "Sedevantists" but you've explained it. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Korah

Makes no sense to me.
Unless you are confusing "Sedevacantists" with SSPX, the Society of St. Pius X. But it is not sedevacantist, never has been. The SSPX has a very convoluted position recognizing the reigning Pope, but refusing to obey him. Lately the SSPX has negotiated closer ties with Rome, such as getting its four bishops' ex-communications lifted. But these bishops are still not recognized as licit for any RC purposes. Marriages and absolutions by their priests are still invalid by RC terms.
Korah

Ok, thanks.

It would make it so much easier if i had a chart on the current occurrences.

Its gets confusing with all this.

__________________

No, the hotheads are wrong...lol! Since no other EO has stepped in to defend RC orders I will. I'm EO, and yes, the Church does accept that RC priests and Bishops are really priests and Bishops with Apostolic Succession. We also accept the Bishop of Rome, ie: the Pope of Rome, as being the Successor of St. Peter's See in Rome, and indeed he is, and would be, if we were reunited the "first among equals". The confusion comes in because the East doesn't look at the question of "validity" in precisely the same way as Western Christianity does, and so often times some EO will say things like "Rome doesn't have valid orders"....partly because the concept of "validity" and so forth is a bit different. As one of the other posters on here said, it's valid in as far as the Church they take place in are orthodox in faith. Since Rome isn't orthodox (in the EO view) then they aren't "valid", but by valid we're actually meaning something entirely different than what Rome means.

I can prove this when for example a Catholic priest becomes Orthodox (and it has happened) they are not normally ordained/reordained....in fact I don't know of ANY that have ever been re-ordained. Indeed, if we were to be reunited, the Orthodox Church would not ask all priests and Bishops of the Roman See to be ordained, we would simply accept them because they already have Apostolic Succession. However when Protestant ministers, Lutherans and I believe Anglican priests become Orthodox, they must be ordained. So we do see Rome as "closer" to us than all other Christian traditions.

There is a tendency among some EO to have an all or nothing approach, especially in certain circles, which are prominent on the Net, hence you'll hear "debates" about whether Rome has any grace at all similar to some of the ultra-traditionalist Latin Catholics. (outside the Church there is no Salvation types) The Net is a breeding ground for these people to push their agenda, however like the RCC, the EO Church's official stance does not line up with these ultra Fundies, and rightly so.

Regardless of any arguments an EO gives you, when push comes to shove, the consensus and voice of the Church has always said Rome is part of the Church, albeit in schism. Very few priests and even fewer Bishops have (when cornered) said that Rome is "heretical" even though you'll hear that by all kinds of laymen, and writers who have nothing better to do than to point out every elses faults.

With EO doctrine and belief, the proof is always on the ground and practical level, and here it is: in certain circumstances EO may take Communion in a Catholic Church if the need is serious enough, (no EO priest, or Church, death bed, etc) or if an EO is isolated by extreme circumstances. We certainly aren't as open as Rome is with accepting us in their communion, but it does happen. Now no EO can argue, "yeah but those are exceptions we still don't believe they are valid"....if someone asks that, then ask then, can an EO on his death bed take Communion from a Methodist Church, or even a Lutheran Church? The answer under ANY condition is always NO...the reason, Apostolic Succession has been broken, AND the faith is far too different. The EO is much closer to Rome than many EO like to admit, but again, when push comes to shove, we're really not that different. Different enough to keep us a part, but the issue of Apostolic Succession is simply not one of these differences as far as I'm concerned.

Wonderful post, Galaxy Quest.
We need to hear more from you, particularly over in TAW, The Ancient Way, where the hotheads have convinced everyone that Rome is heretical and has no valid orders.

This is all very educational. I was under the impression though that on Anglican Priests rejoining the EO that a careful study was made of their AS and the bishop that did the ordaining to determine wether reordination was nessesary. I may be mistaken. Anyone who has some specifics would be nice. I believe I read this at the same place I downloaded a copy of Orthodoax statments on Anglican Orders made by the Romainion Orthodox Church, but I cant find the site. This may also be the specific practices of a particular branch of the Orthodox Church.

At any rate it seems to be accepted that the OC and EO has infused the Anglicans with valid orders, if they were ever invalid. I don't see any barrier for the ELCA to recieve the same restoration.

__________________
Yours in Christ

Fr.Christopher+, SCJ
Priest
St.Jude's Apostolic Church - IOCC


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
May the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ bless you and keep you perpetually in the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, Amen

I didn't mean the ordinations of concelibrating bishops I meant that if a man's ordination to the priesthood or deaconate was invalid then it doesn't matter who is trying to ordain him to the Episcopate it won't work.

I see what you mean. At first glance the two churchs' forms of polity appear similar because of their use of a bishop for administrative purposes, however the two churches have differing opinions of the theological function of that office therefore a close comparison is not possible.

I was not aware of this and it is a helpful distinction. However, one assumption that you are making is that Methodist and Anglican beliefs around the world are uniform and can be compared in a paralel manner.

I'd like to know more about this. Out of curiousity, what is the standard that you are using to define the Anglican use of reason? (possibly Richard Hooker?) If you could explain more about this I would appreciate it for the sake of my own understanding. I'd be especially curious as to how Anglicans have historically used reason when compaired with other churches.

I did not mean to cause offense. I don't know anything about the extent of your personal exposure to these groups. I grew up in a part of the country where both these groups are almost non- existant. There are many people who think of those two groups as if they are interchangable.


Agreed

__________________

“In the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes . . .” C.S. Lewis

Originally Posted by Christopher1020

This is all very educational. I was under the impression though that on Anglican Priests rejoining the EO that a careful study was made of their AS and the bishop that did the ordaining to determine wether reordination was nessesary. I may be mistaken.

I can't speak to that directly, but what you're describing sounds an awful lot like what happens when an Anglican (or Lutheran) minister converts to joins the RCC -- excepting that the careful study would be to determine whether the re-ordination should be conditional or unconditional. (My impression is that simply excepting his orders as valid, without at least a conditional re-ordination, is unheard of in Catholicism.)

__________________
Sincerely,
Catholic in New England.


"And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree
There will be an answer
Let it be"